McLaughlin v. International Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodges 751-A and 751-C, AFL-CI

• Decision Date: 06 June 1988
• Docket Number: LOCAL,AFL-CI,No. 87-3902,87-3902
• Parties: 128 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2694, 109 Lab.Cas. P 10,523, 11 Fed.R.Serv.3d 474 Ann McLAUGHLIN, * Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,LODGES 751-A AND 751-C, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 620

847 F.2d 620

128 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2694, 109 Lab.Cas. P 10,523,

11 Fed.R.Serv.3d 474

Ann McLAUGHLIN, ^* Secretary of Labor, United

States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE

WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL LODGES 751-A AND 751-C,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-3902.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 10, 1988.

Decided June 6, 1988.

George R. Salem, Sol. of Labor, John F. Depenbrock, Associate Sol., Helene Boetticher, Counsel for Litigation, Denise M. Sudell, Atty. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.

Hugh Hafer, Cheryl French, Hafer, Price, Rinehart, & Schwerin, Seattle, Wash., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Before TANG and CANBY, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, ^** District Judge.

BRUCE R. THOMPSON, District Judge:

This is an appeal from an order dismissing actions by the Secretary of Labor to set aside elections conducted by two labor unions. Defendants are the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodges 751-A and 751-C. The two Local Lodges are chartered by and subordinate to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Also involved is District Lodge 751 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The two Local Lodges and the District Lodge are alleged to be entirely separate and independent from one another and will be so treated for the purposes of this opinion. The two actions were consolidated and assigned to a United States Magistrate with the consent of the parties.

The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 482(b). Appellate jurisdiction is granted by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. The district court dismissed the actions because of the refusal by the Secretary to join the District Lodge as an indispensable party. A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7) Fed.R.Civ.P. ("failure to join a party under Rule 19") is subject to de novo review. Franz v. East Columbia Basin Irrigation District, 383 F.2d 391 (9th Cir.1967).

The dispute arises from the 1984 elections of officers for the local unions. The Secretary contends that the locals violated Sec. 401(g) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (the Act) 29 U.S.C. Sec. 481(g) because the locals permitted the District Lodge to use District Lodge funds to support a slate of candidates for office in the locals' elections. During the locals' election campaigns, a number of the District Lodge's business representatives and staff members allegedly campaigned during paid working hours on behalf of the locals' incumbent slates. Subsequently, members of each of the locals protested each election to the international. After receiving a denial of their protests from the international, two members complained to the Secretary and these actions were filed.

The issue before us is whether an outside labor organization, which allegedly engages in conduct that taints the election of another, separate labor organization, is an indispensable party to an LMRDA action challenging the allegedly tainted election.

Two separate inquiries must be made to determine whether a party should be deemed indispensable. First, are there persons who should be joined, either because of their own interests or the interests of the parties which might be harmed by their absence: Such persons as "necessary parties" must be joined if feasible. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a). Second, if parties determined to be necessary under Rule 19(a) cannot be joined, should the action in "equity and good conscience" be dismissed? Only if the court determines that the action should be dismissed is the absent party labelled "indispensable." Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee, 662 F.2d 534 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 917, 103 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed.2d 183 (1982); English v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 465 F.2d 43, 48 (5th Cir.1972). "Speculation about the occurrence of a future event ordinarily does not render all parties potentially affected by that future event necessary or indispensable parties under Rule 19." Northrup Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 705 F.2d 1030, 1046 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 849, 104 S.Ct. 156, 78 L.Ed.2d 144 (1983); see also Puyallup Tribe of Indians v. Port of Tacoma, 717 F.2d 1251 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1049, 104 S.Ct. 1324, 79 L.Ed.2d 720 (1984).

In this case if there had been a contribution of funds by the District Lodge to support the campaigns of the locals' incumbents, this would be a violation of Sec. 401(g). However, the Secretary's recourse is against the locals, not the District Lodge. The Secretary's objective...